Here were my top five six favorite political cartoons this week. Vote for your fav in the poll at the bottom of this post!
by Bob Gorrell at Townhall.com…
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
by Jeff Danziger at GoComics.com…
by Ken Catalino at Townhall.com…
by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I love cartoon #2
#6 sums it up perfectly
What do you believe? The president or your lying eyes and ears?
#4 made me LOL! #6 was pretty good also.
I voted for #2, it was pretty funny.
If the GOP had their way, a much larger percentage of Americans would lose their coverage. A key component of Ryan’s plan, and most conservative plans, is to end the special tax treatment of employer based health coverage, and give people on the individual market that money. The goal is to move people off of employer coverage, putting more people, thus competition in the “free market”.
So you’d end up with more people on internet exchanges, and more people losing their employer coverage to foster competition.
So I find it pretty ironic that right wingers are complaining about website woes and losing coverage when that is what their party people support – more people on websites trying to find coverage,and more people losing their coverage and going into the private market.
Very ironic
#2
I find it pretty ironic when someone claims to be prolife but then votes for the Party of Death.
I voted for #5 because I like the flag in the background.
Prax if you guys figure out how to become conservatives of old, I’ll be back to where I started. The current GOP though – that’s not a party of life, smart people, innovators, folks with solutions, or folks moving forward. It’s a mess – maybe once they figure out their way and get back to something other than fear, demonizing of the poor and minorities, and the quest to move America backwards – then I’ll be back.
Number 5 would be much better if there was nothing in the foreground but I guess that potential man is pretty darn hilarious.
EGV 10:54am
I can understand its a bitter pill to swallow, but come on already, this guy has been caught repeating the same lie, that Americans could keep their coverage and doctors, about 29 times, give or take.
You are and always will be an apologist for the glorious leader and will never face up to this liar playing you and millions of his other worshippers for chumps.
To my buddy Ex-GOP:
This current plan is a disaster. Some of us could see that is was a disaster, from the beginning. Many others are coming to that realization as the plan unfolds.
We used to have a goal of improving healthcare/reducing healthcare costs.
We now have two goals:
1) Ditch this expensive fiasco.
2) Go back and solve the problem of healthcare service and expense.
The Republicans are the only ones who offer a solution to #1.
No one in government is offering a solution to #2.
This is why Republicans have the edge.
However, it is an opportunity for either party to display some real vision and leadership. If either party can propose a plan that puts affordable healthcare into the hands of families, without dependence upon employers (Big Business) or Big Government — it could be a winner.
The key is to recognize that insurance is not healthcare. Forcing people to buy insurance does nothing to address the cost or quality of healthcare. The ACA is like trying to remodel a kitchen by painting the living room.
Bad news …former closed Ohio abortionist Martin Ruddock now performing abortions at 3 Michigan clinics.
Mary -
Where did I defend what Obama said?
Del -
I must say, you’ve caught me by surprise – I mean, for a ring wing conservative who has hated the law since before it passed, to now all of the sudden be against the law – I mean, I’m shocked. Shocked!
Yawn
Yes, I suppose they have the edge, as evidenced by the elections last week.
All were excellent. I voted Ramirez out of force of habit.
Speaking of which, pointing the finger at Republicans and shouting: “Over there be dragons!” isn’t cutting it. Sometimes the grass is greener on the other side. It sure looks like we’re in a scorched earth situation now.
I think three metaphors is enough.
EGV,
Is it more accurate to say you have never acknowledged or condemned his lying? And then his lying to cover his lying? Please correct me if I am wrong.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/05/obama-denies-you-can-keep-it-videotaped-promises/
Obama never should have said it in the first place – tons of people lose their health care for lots of reasons all the time, and there is no way he could make that guarantee. The general statement – I believe he should have said it – the general statement that the world of health insurance was going to stay – that this plan was not uprooting traditional insurance and replacing it with a single payer – but yeah, he shouldn’t have said it – it was a misleading statement.
Here’s a lawyer’s perspective on the Big Lie. Of course, it’s too late to sue (vote out). And unlike with Bush, this hapless vp is no substitue for president.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/2811002329001/obama-operating-without-informed-consent-of-the-governed/?playlist_id=930909787001
Insjurance companies bailing, doctors bailing. Can you say, “between a rock and a hard place”?
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/lou-dobbs-tonight/index.html
EGV,
So is Obama a liar or isn’t he?
No – I don’t believe he was trying to intentionally mislead people – I feel like he was talking generally, that the new law wasn’t replacing private insurance and moving to single payer.
Honestly EGV,
You are delusional.
Ex-GOP says:
November 10, 2013 at 5:00 pm
Del - I must say, you’ve caught me by surprise – I mean, for a ring wing conservative….
Hey, Sconnie — I am not a right-wing conservative. I’m a Distributist, a Chestertonian, a Catholic voter….
I am anti-rightwing and anti-leftwing. I vote for the pro-life candidate who is likely to do the least amount of damage.
Mary –
I’ll say he was lying if you and I can agree these other statements are in the same boat then:
– Health care reform is a ploy to bring in socialism
– Obamacare has death panels in it
– The IRS is stealing people’s medical records. Sorry, had to throw that in…
Seriously though, I think he was drawing a distinction between a single payer system and a system that still relies on insurance companies. I can see how it was misleading though – I mean, with millions of people switching and losing plans yearly, it would be silly to assume every single person who heard speeches 3 or 4 years ago wouldn’t lose their insurance.
Del –
I’m just saying, if you could have given me a guess to the question “what is the least surprising thing Del could say about this thread” – I would say that Del doesn’t like health care reform and thinks it should go away.
EGV,
I wish I could agree these are all lies but I’m not convinced. Now is Obama a liar or not?
Any source to back your assertion that the IRS stealing medical records is a false account? Sorry, had to throw that in. Also do some googling on the subject. You might learn something.
EGV, I’m beginning to wonder what was in that bitter pill you had to swallow.
No – I don’t think he is a liar. I don’t think he was attempting to deliberately mislead people.
Ex- competition ALWAYS lowers prices. What did Obama’s plan do? Certainly didn’t drive competition. And thanks…my premiums are going way up. I had great insurance through my job. When I lost my job my husband and I had to fend for ourselves since his job doesn’t offer insurance.
We don’t have car insurance tied to our jobs…so why health? i’m not familiar with Ryan’s plan and can’t say thats the way to go but I do know when government mandates and stifles the free market it means we’re all gonna pay.
Mary: “EGV… Now is Obama a liar or not?”
EGV: “No I don’t think he is a liar”,
LOL!! LOL!!! ROFLOL!!!
The Republicans are a pathetic bunch, they leave much to be desired and if they sell out like the “pro-life democrats” i.e. Bart Stupak and company I want their butts out of office as well but so far at least they have not sworn their allegiance to the Dead Babies R Us mob.
Sounds like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth to me, EGV. I don’t believe you can have it both ways.
You comes across as:
EGV: “I am really pro-life. I frequently post on Jill Stanek’s pro-life blog where she has exposed BHO, the most pro-abortion, pro-death (Life?-It’s above my pay grade”) president to ever hold the office. The same BHO who Jill documents NEVER saw an abortion law he didn’t love and vote for, who voted not once, not twice but three times to make sure a woman ended up with a dead baby even if the baby survived a botched abortion (Hilary with her Maggie Award wouldn’t even vote for this). The same BHO who Jill Stanek testified before while he sat emotionless at a IL legislative hearing as she told about holding an innocent DS baby, the product of a botched abortion, until he died after being left in a dirty utility room. I am pro-life yet I voted for BHO the leader of the party of death whose platform was designed by PP, NARAL and Emily’s List who proudly boast -“abortion-no apologies, no restrictions”.
Pleeeease!!! If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, even tells lies like a duck…
Pro-lifers are in the battle of all battles for the lives of the unborn with Obamacare the most pro-abortion law to ever be rammed through Congress (with Celeste Richards sitting in the White House numerous times helping to craft this bill) so PP can make millions-billions of taxpayers dollars and you don’t get it? May God help you.
Del wrote:
The key is to recognize that insurance is not healthcare.
Hey, Sconnie — I am not a right-wing conservative. I’m a Distributist, a Chestertonian, a Catholic voter….
I am anti-rightwing and anti-leftwing. I vote for the pro-life candidate who is likely to do the least amount of damage.
:) Del, you truly are my hero! If you keep writing 24K gold like this, I may hang up my keyboard and just read, from now on! :)
EGV wrote, in reply to Praxedes,
Prax if you guys figure out how to become conservatives of old, I’ll be back to where I started.
Er… could you please tell me which of these “conservatives of old” were in favour of such social entitlement programmes as you support? You’re talking nonsense here, I think.
The current GOP though – that’s not a party of life, smart people, innovators, folks with solutions, or folks moving forward.
(*sigh*) If we could get you to talk in anything beyond slogans and bumper-stickers, we might make some progress at communication. This is–forgive me–meaningless tripe, friend. For example:
“Party of Life”: what, exactly, does this MEAN? It’s a blank slate (and a “fuzzy” one, at that–I don’t see much success in applying chalk to it), on which anyone can write anything they please. If you mean to refer to PRO-life (the canonical term which is clearly defined as “the world-view which seeks to protect all human life, from conception until natural death, from being targetted for death by social engines, etc.”), then your own votes for the party which champions the very opposite are scandalous.
“innovators”: what, exactly, is so good about “innovation”, if one has no concept of which “innovations” are good, and which are evil?
“folks with solutions”: what, in your mind, would define a “solution”–especially since you’re so vague about the problems themselves?
“folks moving forward”: this is simply silly. “Forward” is a term from the physical sciences, and it’s meaningless unless one has a set goal in mind (unless, of course, you simply mean “continuing in the direction in which you happen to be pointing”–which is rather a questionable ideal for you to follow). If “forward” means “moving toward EGV’s personal tastes”, then your definition of “forward” is simply self-sealing, self-serving nonsense. If not, then you’ll have to do the rather difficult work of defining (without vague slogans and vacuous bumper-stickers) objective moral good and evil.
It’s a mess
That’s the one comment with which I cannot disagree.
maybe once they figure out their way and get back to something other than fear, demonizing of the poor and minorities, and the quest to move America backwards – then I’ll be back.
(??) My dear fellow, if you’re under the impression that this statement of yours is anything other than incoherent, trite and rhetorical fluff, then I really don’t know what to tell you. You seem to have gathered all your political hatreds (most of which are not well-defined at all), and attributed them to every last GOP member indiscriminately.
Case in point: “move America backwards”? Can you explain what you mean by that, apart from saying, “they seek to do things which I really, really don’t like”? “Forward” and “Backward” are, even as metaphors, only useful if one is not a moral relativist… and therein lies your problem. (Refer to our previous conversations on moral relativism, for more on that.)
The majority of commercially insured Americans are on employer-based plans, Sydney. Are you upset that Obamacare didn’t s dismantle this status quo?
Paladin says:
November 11, 2013 at 9:43 am
[Del wrote:
blah, blah, blah…]
If you keep writing 24K gold like this, I may hang up my keyboard and just read, from now on!
==============================
I get, Paladin: You like my short posts better than my long ones!
BlueVelvet says:
November 11, 2013 at 12:39 pm
The majority of commercially insured Americans are on employer-based plans, Sydney. Are you upset that Obamacare didn’t s dismantle this status quo?
I am…..
You see, only Big Business can afford to provide the “comprehensive” health care. Small businesses and individuals can’t afford it. And healthcare clinics are no longer able to serve patients on a pay-as-you-go basis.
As a result, the whole system is biased toward protecting Big Business from competition and securing a class of wage-slaves to serve them.
Most people do not need “comprehensive” insurance. What we really need is protection from major medical and hospitalization costs. This insurance is affordable, because most people need it rarely.
If we encouraged employees to contribute to healthcare savings accounts for typical expenses, and encouraged doctors and clinics to provide competitive healthcare services, then healthcare would become affordable again. (This was the common model as most of us were growing up, before HMO’s were invented. So we already know that it can work.)
This would reduce healthcare costs and support families and small businesses, without government intrusion in our healthcare and conscience rights.
You are absolutely correct Del. I don’t hear it mentioned often enough, but this whole idea of “comprehensive” health insurance, is the problem. And any solution that proposes more of it will simply allow both medical and insurance costs to continue skyrocketing. A great analogy I’ve heard to explain this to people would be thinking car insurance should cover things like oil changes and maintenance, rather than protect you financially in the event of an accident.
If the ACA was repealed and we simply replaced the law by allowing insurance companies to sell plans and compete for business across state lines and improved the current health savings account practices, we would be well on our way to competitive, affordable, and top-notch care for nearly everyone.
Far too many people don’t understand the reasons healthcare costs have exploded which include a combination of government and big business induced factors ranging from everything from excessive regulations and too much federal spending (just as the same has caused college costs to increase at such a rapid pace). Most people either don’t know or don’t remember that before Medicare and Medicaid the vast majority of doctors, including specialists, dedicated at least 30% of their practices to providing free and reduced rate services to the uninsured and poor, and hospitals received generous tax incentives for providing the same. Between the Medicare/caid plans and HMO’s, doctors have seen their payments for services decrease while at the same time having to add untold numbers of staff to deal with all the bureaucratic red-tape involved in getting paid from these companies. Couple that with the excessive lawsuits that have caused malpractice insurance to skyrocket, ridiculous schooling costs (again caused by the govt back student loan industry), and increasing interference from the DEA and other bureaucrats, and you have a situation where many general practice physicians can barely afford to operate. This is also largely why we have a shortage of family doctors here and why the problem will only get worse.
The best thing that the government could do for healthcare, quite frankly, is to butt out of it – at all levels. I personally will not support the ACA at any level, and my husband and I have both opted to join a Christian healthcare cost sharing ministry instead where we’ve been able to add a catastrophic rider to our existing sharing level. We’ve become self-pay, though most of our bills have been met though the ministry. Ironically we’re paying less than we were with traditional insurance, and our doctors have bent over backwards to accommodate us and keep our cash paying business. The ministry itself has assisted us in negotiating lower self-pay rates with both our primary care doctors and a specialist I see regularly for a neurological condition, and they’ve even assisted us in finding a privately owned pharmacy that has done the same. I was shocked to learn that the pharmacy would give me the same discount they give to insurers, and even more shocked that the cost of my medication is now less that my co-pays were for it through our insurer.
While going this route has taken more time and effort on our part, we’ve developed much closer relationships with our doctors, and frankly I can’t imagine a scenario now where we would go back to traditional insurance willingly. Ironically I have a few “liberal” leaning friends who have accused us of being selfish and not wanting to help the sick or poor by supporting the ACA, even though we’ve been making additional monthly donations to the ministry VOLUNTARILY to help others on lower sharing tiers with bills that haven’t been met. The hard truth for some is that if an idea, product, or policy is good and effective, you don’t have to force people to buy into and you don’t have to steal from them to help others.
My main fear at this point is that the fallout from the ACA will lead to even more governmental interference and a call to single-payer, which as most realists know simply means the vast majority of people will receive inferior, rationed care, and the costs for private care will become prohibitively expensive.
Del,
Your last comment deserves another of Paladin’s 24 carat gold appraisals.
Del wrote:
I get, Paladin: You like my short posts better than my long ones!
:P (*sputter*)
The only point on which I’ll agree with that is the fact that your posts get to the point quite faster than mine, on average… :)
hi NewtoLifeandLove, I am Canadian + no friend of much of orthodox-medecine-practices (like reliance on drugs),
but I just shake my head at the absurdity of American thinking re. health. The way to IMPROVE HEALTH is via better insurance – huh? Tell me how money (of any amount) relates to better treatment? Just what are you smoking? Health is living a very long, disease-free life … which has very little to do with ANY orthodox-doctor treatment. Mostly it has to d with nutrition, exercise and rest.
okay dodging the verbal firefight here….
Number six was clever and punny and I love playing with grammar. Wordplay is hilarious.
Hi, my name is LibertyBelle, and I’m a nerd.
Paladin -
Welcome back…i mean, not to this board – to 2013. I know you haven’t had the internet, but are you that out of touch? Do you not see the GOP in fighting? The RINO debates? The tea party vs the old guard conservatives? Is this new to you? Really, you need me to explain that a big part of the current GOP thinks science, technology, investment, planning, hope, electricity, and other things are bad, and just want to sit back on their porch with shotguns and attack anything that fears them?
Seriously – is this news to you?
I hope your internet is now consistent – I’d do a little reading.
Start with the various great argument about how Reagan wouldn’t be welcome in today’s current Republican party.
NewtoLife
– Can you tell me how the selling across state lines would work? For instance, I live in Wisconsin. Are you saying California companies would need to establish a network of clinics in this area and then sell insurance? If this is a great idea, how do you explain that when Georgia tried this, not a single company registered?
– Does it make more sense to screen somebody and find out they are pre-diabetic, and then manage that and get them to normal levels – or does it make more sense for society to wait until a person has full blown diabetes, and now you’ve got a much more costly issue. You seem to be supporting a model that encourages emergency care – not lifelong and preventative care. For instance, do you believe people should have regular breast exams or other cancer screenings?
New to Life -
Also – can you let me know what measurable statistics seem to say that American’s free market system is better than countries with single payer? Infant mortality? Life expectancy?
Let me know what statistical measures please.
“really, you need me to explain that a big part of the current GOP thinks science, technology, investment, planning, hope, electricity, and other things are bad, and just want to sit back on their porch with shotguns and attack anything that fears them? Seriously – is this news to you?”
I sort of admire that you have the cojones to demand statistical measures to support people’s arguments after a paragraph like this.
Cojones is not what he’s lacking. . . . .
CT -
I was proud of myself as well.
Seriously though, does anybody need more of a breakdown that says that the tea party isn’t lock and step with traditional conservative politics? Should I pull out some Bob Dole critiques? Maybe one of the fifty articles of the last few years about how Reagan wouldn’t get out of a primary?
But you were EX Gop before the tea party.
Not true CT – I even voted for a GOPer in a 2010 election – but I used to be a straight ticket GOPer.
Ex,
It’s not safe for you to set up so many strawmen in a row like you did at 7:06 p.m. Not with your pants aflame.
“It’s a mess – maybe once they figure out their way and get back to something other than fear, demonizing of the poor and minorities, and the quest to move America backwards – then I’ll be back.”
You must misunderstand something about America Ex. The poor enjoy a vast system of welfare that allows them to wear $150 Nike shoes and carry 3 cellphones (one of which is through a federal program). The poor use the LINK card to purchase items that are not allowable and Democrats turn a blind eye. The poor have more than adequate medical care through state Medicaid that even covers abortions. How about section 8? State-run schools bend over backwards for the poor to provide free stuff.
Minorities have affirmative action programs readily available and (newsflash) qualify for welfare in democrat-run states faster than a Caucasian dude like me. Have you heard of white privilege? Through this “wonderful” concept I have been excluded for the last 20 years.
The problem Ex is that you have bought into the PC and liberal movement that has blinded you to the true state of affairs. Democrats have removed the term PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY from their constituents vocabulary long ago.
The democrats have taught the poor and the “minorities” to stay in their place. And you think the ACA will do what? We already know that the premiums are comparable.
The democrats instill fear in the poor and minorities through their ‘big brother’ propaganda and move America backwards though pro-socialistic policies.
Thomas and the two people that ‘liked’ his post –
Case proven.
Somebody can lose their job and end up on food stamps, and all of the sudden the person contributing a small part of their check to help the person is the ‘victim’.
Let me ask you this Thomas – how many working people do you know that have strongly considered giving up their job to live in this life of ‘privilege’?
Thomas – let’s talk about a few of these.
So Medicaid – you seem to have an issue with this.
Medicaid, as a service, assists roughly 60% of all nursing home residents, and 37% of all births. The majority of all benefits are paid to single mothers and their kids. Disabled individuals are another large chunk of spending.
Who specifically do you think we are paying too much money to, and we should cut?
“You must misunderstand something about America Ex. The poor enjoy a vast system of welfare that allows them to wear $150 Nike shoes and carry 3 cellphones (one of which is through a federal program). The poor use the LINK card to purchase items that are not allowable and Democrats turn a blind eye. The poor have more than adequate medical care through state Medicaid that even covers abortions. How about section 8? State-run schools bend over backwards for the poor to provide free stuff.”
Why do you guys say stuff like this? Why? Does it make you feel better to put others down? You realize a lot of those “expensive” clothes can be found at thrift stores for very cheap prices in very good condition, or even from clothing boxes given by charity or churches? Do you think poor people should only be allowed to have crappy clothing just in case they don’t look poor enough for you? Have you tried to find a job while wearing ill-fitting, bad clothing or clothing in disrepair? Just so you know, I wear mostly name brand, decent clothing and I doubt I’ve ever spent more than 20 on a clothing item, ever, because I know what Good Will and other thrift stores are. You don’t have to look like garbage just because you don’t have much money. Even when I was homeless I managed to find clothing that looked all right. It certainly didn’t mean I wasn’t/am not poor.
Have you tried to find a job or keep a job without a phone? There’s a reason there is a program to help people get phones, and that’s because the US is quite difficult to get and keep employment without a phone. A phone is pretty much a necessity nowadays, and not everyone has a family member or friend who’s phone that they can use to have prospective employers or your employers to get hold of you.
Section 8 only pays a percentage of housing. Many apartment complexes and rental houses don’t even accept Section 8. The ones that do tend to be in rough parts of town and not places that are all that safe to live in. What an awesome life! So much fun being poor.
State run schools do horrible things like give poor children free breakfasts and lunches. Oh my stars, how awful for children to have a nutritious meal a couple times a day. We need to cut it out RIGHT NOW.
“Minorities have affirmative action programs readily available and (newsflash) qualify for welfare in democrat-run states faster than a Caucasian dude like me. Have you heard of white privilege? Through this “wonderful” concept I have been excluded for the last 20 years.”
Have you ever heard of blockbusting and redlining? The phenomenon of “driving while black/Hispanic” and other unfair criminal “justice” system problems? Have you seen the studies that show that people with an obviously “not white” name are much less likely to get a call back from prospective employers? I have so little patience for this “white people in America are being discriminated against!” crap, because by all the statistics it’s not true. I’m a white-passing minority, people usually don’t ID me as Latino just by looks and I don’t have a Latino name because my father is white. I definitely have privileges compared to people at a similar income level and in the same social status as I am simply because of the color of my skin. It’s not saying that white people never have it rough, plenty of white people have a terrible time in life for various reasons. But racism definitely still exists and white people are not being held back because they aren’t a minority. I’m not saying our anti-racism policies are perfect, and they might cause more problems than they fix, but the fact remains that non-white people do have discrimination to deal with, and lack privileges that white people have.
Do you guys just not like yourselves very much so you have to put others down to feel superior? I really don’t get all this poor person bashing. Do you really think that poverty is something that people aspire to? That children sit around saying “Gee, I can’t wait until I grow up, I can get barely enough government money to cover expenses and work monotonous, low-paying jobs until I die, leaving my kids thousands of dollars in unpaid medical debt because I’ve never been able to access insurance!”? I’m not saying the way we deal with poor people is perfect, but this blame and shaming thing is NOT working, NOT the way to go about fixing it. Can you imagine what it’s like to be treated like you’re a problem, like you’re trash, ever since you were a kid? And then you wonder why people don’t like the GOP.
What I’ve learned from this website is that if you’re poor, you should wear burlap sacks, only buy beans and rice with your food stamps (not ALL poor people take food stamps btw), be homeless instead of take Section 8 to help with housing, make sure you don’t ever ask for help with healthcare (just go to the ER and get 10k in debt per health issue, we’ll make sure you NEVER climb out of poverty), and never EVER dare to look real Americans in the eye or think you’re as good as them. ALWAYS be ashamed of yourself for existing and maybe needing some help here and there. It doesn’t matter what kind of family you were born into, what kind of education you had, what drug problems or abuse you dealt with at a young age, if you have mental or physical disabilities, or if you simply lost your job during the recession. You’re trash, you’re a leech, and you probably always will be.
And I find it HILARIOUS there’s a thread right now complaining that PP employees can’t afford health insurance and have low wages, and how we need to help them! While this thread is all about how the evil poor people are sucking everyone dry and don’t actually need the help. Such ridiculous hypocrisy. So Christian. I can totally see Jesus being all angry about helping poor people, that’s definitely what he was about. Isn’t there that verse that says “Thou shalt complain about every cent that helps anyone less fortunate than thyself”?
That I don’t understand as well – Thomas, and the two people that liked his post – is why it seems like the small percentage of the poor that abuse the system and cost Americans a small percentage of their income – why that bothers you so much, but I rarely see people outraged at corporate welfare and the abuses of the system there (unless their attacks are politically motivated – bailed out companies and such).
Some of the largest companies in the country pay little to no taxes – Americans subsidize the health care and wellbeing of a lot of their employees while their top earners make insane amounts of money. Yet no outrage.
But heaven forbid if somebody on food stamps gets food that a person doesn’t approve of.
” But heaven forbid if somebody on food stamps gets food that a person doesn’t approve of.”
You know they just don’t complain about junk food, right? They also complain if they get anything other than ground beef or chicken for meat, or fresh veggies instead of canned veggies. Some people really think that poor people should only eat oatmeal, beans, rice, and maybe if we’re nice you can have some milk and cheese for the kids. It’s so frustrating, I don’t take food stamps even though I qualify, and I eat a lot worse than the people who choose to do so, but I don’t begrudge them decent food. For goodness sake.
“Some of the largest companies in the country pay little to no taxes – Americans subsidize the health care and wellbeing of a lot of their employees while their top earners make insane amounts of money. Yet no outrage. ”
Oh, they are outraged only when Planned Parenthood does it. It’s literally the worst thing ever when PP pays their employees so little that they are on food stamps and can’t afford the joke of health insurance that’s offered to them (like 600 bucks every two weeks for a family plan). But thousands of other businesses do the same, and all the same people can say is “well, what are they complaining about? They should find another job.”. It’s honestly just disgusting hypocrisy. I can’t believe people sometimes. Actually I can, they are the same people who volunteer at the soup kitchens to feel good about themselves while they talk crap about you back in the break room, loud enough so you can hear. I’ve known these types my entire life.
Oh, and about Medicaid and other assistance programs for healthcare. It’s basically set up so there’s a gap between getting health insurance provided through Medicaid or another program, and being able to afford it on your own or have a job that provides it. That gap is HUGE. Uninsured people who fall between being poor enough to qualify for Medicaid (which you have to be far below the poverty level to do so), and can’t get it through their jobs (like places that “offer” health insurance for ridiculous premiums that you can’t possibly afford on that income level, or businesses that deliberately keep their employees just slightly below full time so they don’t have to provide insurance). That leaves a LOT of people unable to access health insurance. Pretending this doesn’t exist does not fix it. Your choices are, at lower income levels, is to NOT work or work very little so you can have health insurance, or work and hope you don’t get sick. That’s not much of a choice. If you had a chronic health condition that needs somewhat regular care, what do you think you would do?
“Let me ask you this Thomas – how many working people do you know that have strongly considered giving up their job to live in this life of ‘privilege’?”
Millions are now working less just to qualify for subsidies for Obamacare alone. Hell, due to Obamacare people are getting divorced to qualify for government handouts. A married couple gets penalized and loses their eligibility for Obamacare subsidies at tens of thousands of dollars lower income level then two unmarried adults shacking up.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/obamacares-marriage-penalty-cohabitating-couples-will-pay-less-for-healthca/
Jack I agree with you. I am sick of corporate welfare including Wall Street, PP and many others, the political payback and kickbacks of Demoncrats and Repub-aristocrats along with the broken welfare system. I don’t trust the federal government to help the poor or to run the healthcare system for that matter because they only use them propagating the welfare state to enslave them on “Uncle Sam’s Plantation” (please read Star Parker’s book by this name). Star was on welfare for years and she knows the traps of system to keep the poor on the plantation.
My family and I love the poor and disadvantaged and have spent our lives ministering to them especially mothers, babies, and teens. I don’t like seeing poor people demonized because there are solutions that can truly help the poor. I don’t believe most poor people are out to “game” the system. My late mother-in-law worked like a dog to feed and clothe her children after leaving their abusive alcoholic father so they would have a better life than she had. She received welfare for a short time to help her put food on the table since her ex-husband couldn’t be found to pay child support for years. She also received peer pressure from some of the other single mothers to try to “game” the system but she refused to stay on welfare because she knew it was supposed to be ”a hand up not a hand out”. Do you understand what I am saying? There is a proper balance between helping and hurting someone. That is why state and city government, NFP organizations, pregnancy care centers, healthcare organizations, churches and ministries are much better suited to work together to help the poor than “Big Brother” government. We have many success stories of helping men, women, children, families and babies (born and unborn) by feeding, clothing and job training the poor no matter their life circumstances. We also have wonderful testimonies of the spiritual transformation of those who chose to become new creations leaving behind drugs, alcohol, crime, gangs, abuse, premarital sex, cohabitation, adultery, broken families, homosexuality, greed, hate, and welfare fraud for a new life in Christ. (Everyone is welcome, no one is required to accept Christ to get help but many come of their own free will.) My family has never volunteered to help the poor and then “talked crap about them back in the break room”.
how many working people do you know that have strongly considered giving up their job to live in this life of ‘privilege’?”
LOL. I know people that did more than consider giving up their job. They actually did give up their job; some of them more than one job.
…
truth – you are missing the entire point of the conversation…
I think you misunderstand me, Prolifer L. I’m not saying “the federal government is the only way to take care of poor people, and if you don’t agree with me than you’re a terrible person and hate poor people”. I actually think local and state level organizations, whether they are publicly or privately funded, are better equipped to care for the needs of the poverty stricken in that locality, because they are closer to the problem and can see where the true need is. Solutions to poverty aren’t one size fits all, an alcoholic who can’t keep his/her rent paid has different needs and issues than the single parent who was abandoned/abused by his/her spouse and needs to feed and clothe her kids, who has different needs and issues than the homeless teenage prostitute. I also think that the way that welfare is set up creates a pretty awful catch-22, if you find a full time job you lose all your benefits and you’re just as poor as when you were on assistance, but now you have no time to spend with your children. What we’re doing now isn’t working.
Of course I don’t think we can suddenly stop federal assistance, that would be a disaster, but I think we need to work on strengthening local programs (I’m fine with federal money being directed to targeted local programs) and really focus on education and job training, as well as making sure people have access to quality healthcare and decent nutrition so their health needs won’t put them in ridiculous amounts of debt while they are trying to climb out of poverty. Poverty is a cycle for a reason, most children in poverty aren’t being taught how to pay bills and balance a checkbook, they aren’t learning the value of education and they grow up not seeing a way out.
My issue is people who blame the poor people for being poor, and demonize them, rather than looking for solutions that are workable. Snidely commenting on people’s clothing, because if they don’t wear nasty clothes apparently they aren’t poor enough, isn’t helping. Judging people for buying things you don’t personally approve of on food stamps isn’t helping, especially considering a lot of low income people live in food deserts and don’t have much education on nutrition, not to mention the fact that many of the parents work and end up having quick calorie dense meals to feed the kids, rather than a nutritious home-cooked meal. Throwing a fit that children get free or cheap lunches at school isn’t helping either (besides being mean-spirited, who in the world doesn’t want children to get a leg up at school?). People seem to have no idea what constantly, constantly being treated like trash and a problem does to someone’s psyche. It certainly doesn’t encourage anyone to do better.
Oh, and I didn’t mean that all people who help out at soup kitchens or with the poor or homeless are the type that look down on them. Some of the people, probably most, are just really nice people who want to help. But there are many that do look down on you, treat you like trash that should be lucky that someone of their stature deigned to give some food to the refuse on the street. Street kids have to put up with those types all the time, along with the types that pretend to want to help when they’re actually looking to buy or force sex or drugs. There are few things more degrading than being very poor or homeless, especially when you’re very young or very old.
And really if I could pick only one poor bashing for people to cut out it would be the whining about nice clothes. So what if they don’t dress poor enough for you? You don’t know how those people got those “nice” clothes (and a lot of them are probably knock offs too). Like I said, thrift stores are great for finding cheap but well-made and nice looking clothing, even name brands, sometimes charities have very nice stuff donated as well. Plus, after the recession a lot of people had a huge drop in income and might still have their nice stuff from when they still had their jobs. People don’t have to look bad to make you feel like they are poor enough to deserve consideration Thomas. It’s degrading. Maybe people should have a “poor person’s uniform” that is the only thing they are allowed to wear when they are on assistance or under a certain income level. Along with an approved list of food items that other people have decided they are allowed to eat. Then we could all figure out who’s on assistance right away, and we could point and laugh!
OK Jack I think I get your point but I am glad that you recognize most of those who work to help the poor are good-hearted, compassionate people not judgmental. Jesus said “It is the sick that need a physician” and the church was meant to be the hospital for them to receive healing. There are frustrations as well because when you see someone is not ready to stop a destructive lifestyle it is so painful to watch them self-destruct (we would pray they wouldn’t wind up dead before they decided to turn their life around). Some folks are stuck in bondage thinking that God could never forgive them for their past but that is just not true. One of the saddest things I remember was a gifted young woman who came out of drug addiction who had a wonderful ministry but after a few years she went back into addiction because she could not accept God’s forgiveness for her past (I think she had been involved in prostitution); many people tried to reach out to her but she could not forgive herself. However many other people did receive forgiveness and have gone on to live blessed lives.
The only problem with the good-hearted ones is that some are incredibly naive. It’s not their faults, many people from decent families can’t dream of some of the stuff that street kids and homeless people came from. Lol once this sweet old lady at a church I used to get food from told me that she was so sure my mother was worried about me and wanted me to come home. I didn’t have anything to say to that. It’s just a completely different world and if you didn’t come from it, it’s hard to relate to I think. It’s hard to not feel bitter towards people who have “solutions” like that, but most of them have good intentions so you have to just get over it. That doesn’t excuse the absolutely snobby ones though.
And addiction is a tough one, because it’s a medical problem as well as a mental one. I’m sorry about that young lady.
Middle and upper class conservatives tend to demand more virtue of the poor than they do of themselves. Very curious that Tea Party lunatics want to dismantle “Big Government” but are all -too-happy to accept the salary and benefits offered by “Big Government.” Maybe we’ve been “enabling” these radical anti-government people for too long. Live by the consequences of your convictions: don’t accept the paycheck.
Let me ask you this Thomas – how many working people do you know that have strongly considered giving up their job to live in this life of ‘privilege’?
You missed my point Ex. I was referring to abuses of the system. Not uses for their short-term purpose. The title “entitlement programs” is a misnomer and some take it literally unfortunately.
And I now many that will not take a job at Mickey Ds in order to get off welfare. But that is not the issue. The issue is that these programs have been overused and abused in democrat-run states. This has created a constituency that is dependent on democrat handouts everywhere and something that we cannot sustain.
You know Ex, its funny how libs tend to twist any references to personal responsibility to call us fiscal conservatives evil. Get over that barrier Ex and start thinking about how the welfare state has created a monster.
And you may as well give some proper thought to how the pendulum has shifted in terms of reverse discrimination too. Unless you are too buried under the PC movement…
Question Thomas. Do you have any idea of how many people on welfare are able-bodied people who don’t work, versus the elderly and disabled and working poor? Any idea?
Here’s a little hint, it’s 9%. And that includes unemployment, which people pay for themselves when they are working. I’m sure you don’t disagree that people are entitled to the unemployment that they themselves helped pay for when they get laid off? Some of the rest besides employment is medical insurance. I know, I know, how awful that people who aren’t working get medical insurance. Still more is Social Security survivor benefits. http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677
The stats don’t back up, and have never backed up, the welfare state you guys like to whine about. There are abuses here and there, sure, but the huge amount of non-disabled people you think sit around and collect benefits while buying nice shoes don’t exist. MOST people who are not elderly or disabled work while they receive benefits (and it’s usually medical or food stamps).
And there are no statistics that back up “reverse discrimination” either.
The abuses rack up the collosal costs Jack. Costs that have to be swallowed by people like you and me. Democrats do a poor job of screening applicants and checking up on them. Is that fair? Regionally you would be surprised what your “9 percent” looks like.
Oh, and the reverese discrimination is there. We have many friends who have college-age children and they all tell us that scholarships for Caucasians don’t exist. I actually checked it out and sure enough, they don’t. Ask around in your neck of the woods and get back to me…
Scholarships for Caucasians specifically don’t exist… because Caucasians get pretty much all scholarships that aren’t specifically geared towards minorities. Is that hard to fathom? It’s not discriminating to carve out a piece of the pie that minorities have a chance to get at. That being said, even though I mostly look white I’m still half-Cuban, if I ever go to college I’m totally applying for the Latino scholarships.
I love it when I post numbers and facts to back up my point of view (like who receives benefits) and people come back at me with vague generalities. Where’s your proof of how much abuses happen? Who are the cheats? What percentage of the 9% are not legitimately receiving money? Where are your facts? I’ve been in the poorest of the poor neighborhoods my entire life, and from what I’ve seen there are the small percentage of people that you consider “cheats” who’ve simply given up. Minimum wage doesn’t pay the bills unless you work eighty hour weeks you know.
Today – scholarships are based on affirmative action Jack. I know you are just trying to make fun of how they are used. They don’t have to have specific names but are geared against Caucasian applicants nonetheless.
You actually think someone keeps stats on the cheats in democrat – run states? Thanks for a good laugh Jack…
I’m curious, Thomas. Do you have issues with scholarships that are only given to those with low income? Those who are good at sports? Those who excel in science? Those who have specific family circumstances? Why is it only people who aren’t white that get people all upset if they have scholarships geared towards them? Not nearly all scholarships are dedicated to those of a specific race. The ones that aren’t dedicated to those of a specific race are generally given to Caucasians. This is factual. It’s not wrong to set aside some scholarships to groups who have cultural things working against them getting an education (like poor people, or black people, or whatever).
Don’t you know that the states that take the most federal money are GOP run? What are the stats for welfare cheats in those states, since it’s only Dems that don’t care about welfare cheats you should be able to come up with all kinds of proof of what you’re saying.
Illinois is not GOP – run Jack and I cannot sleep nights due to that awful fact (LOL)…
I don’t think that you actually know that affirmative action is not about ability Jack. Getting a scholarship based on ones culture does not guarantee success in college. It’s actually kind of demeaning to think of it. You want college applicants to be selected for acceptance based on skin color??? I want them to be selected based on test scores.
For goodness sake, Thomas. Scholarships aren’t about college acceptance. They are about affording college. If you’ve been accepted to a state college where tuition is 10K a year, and you can only qualify for a Pell Grant of 2K, scholarships help make up the rest of the tuition. Most of these scholarships do not specify race. Scholarships that do not specify race overwhelmingly go to Caucasian candidates. Scholarships that specify race are there to try and make up for the unconscious bias against people who aren’t white.
Rest assured, the racial balance in universities is still very white and European descended, more so than the general population. The minorities haven’t taken over yet! Whites still get a bigger piece of the pie, yall can rest at ease.
I was referring to affirmative action at first regarding my acceptance point and than I switched gears discussing the purpose of scholarships. Have I not been clear?
My point is that scholarships need to be color-blind period, based on ability. It is not to exclude minorities (and for you to state that is disengenous) but to ensure that the most qualified (in terms of ability) get them. Education exists to prepare generations for leadership, and leadership Jack is color-blind.
“My point is that scholarships need to be color-blind period, based on ability. It is not to exclude minorities (and for you to state that is disengenous) but to ensure that the most qualified (in terms of ability) get them. Education exists to prepare generations for leadership, and leadership Jack is color-blind. ”
Except that isn’t how it works. The world isn’t color blind. The only way that scholarships could be color-blind (and gender blind, for that matter) is if we didn’t allow any racially identifying factors to be on the applications (no names, if you have a typical “black” name or “hispanic” name, or maybe even not putting down area you grew up in because some neighborhoods are almost exclusively one race or another, and that can’t even account for any other racially identifying things that could be on an application). It’s like with job applications, they have done multiple studies showing that if people can identify you as non-white (excluding Asians) from your name or other identifying features, even with the same experience and ability as a white applicant, you’re much less likely to get a call back. Color-blindness SOUNDS nice, but it’s not the reality that we live in. That’s why stuff like affirmative action existed in the first place and still exists, because people don’t get a fair shake even if they are just as qualified.
I don’t know why it’s so hard for certain people to understand that systemic biases exist. Maybe you have to come from a non-white or mixed race family to see it, or spend time around a lot of non-white people. But even if you can’t see it personally, a little research into racial bias will show you systemic inequities in pretty much every area of life.
You know there are scholarships, that aren’t based on merit, for people who are first generation college students, right? And scholarships for those who come from low-income households, sometimes based on merit sometimes not. And for those who have incarcerated parents. Those are just some examples of non-racially and non-merit based types of scholarships. Are all those scholarships wrong?
And no one is stopping you from setting up a scholarship for Caucasians, or Eastern-European immigrants, or whatever you want.
Hey I am an Eastern European and because of that I deserve special consideration. Nice but I will pass. My wife and I are very ethnic at home but outside of it, we advise our children that it is the ability that counts. My family does not represent white privilege Jack.
Yes, your children’s abilities DO count the most, because they (presumably) don’t have dark skin and don’t get labelled to the same extent that people of other minority groups do. It’s the same reason why many Cubanos (a lot have much lighter skin than other ethnic groups, because of the way we came over here) face less discrimination than other hispanic groups. White passing is a thing, as gross as it is.
Why do people in these conversations completely ignore it when I point out glaring examples of how “color-blindness” doesn’t completely work because of racial bias? Your ability doesn’t mean near as much if your application gets tossed because your name is Shaniqua or Juan. I may be half-Cuban, but an application with the white name Jack isn’t going to be passed over as quickly as an “ethnic” name would be. And that’s not even getting into bias in interviews and such. This is all supported with evidence, btw.
What I don’t like is “quotas”, but I do think there needs to be some way to combat the unconscious bias against non-white people. If racially based scholarships are one way to help, that’s fine with me.
All white people have “white privilege” to some extent or another Thomas. White immigrants probably have less, because of ethnic bias, but still, the lighter your skin is the less likely you are to suffer from systemic racism. People don’t seem to get that it doesn’t mean you get an easy life, or that you have not suffered in some way or another. Like, I’ve had a rather difficult life, but the difficulties didn’t arise because of my skin color or ethnic background (as long as people don’t know it, people have been somewhat racist when they find out my ethnic background, but overall I get treated like any other white person because I don’t look all that hispanic.). White people in general don’t have to worry about their skin color keeping them from opportunities, that is all white privilege means.
Jack, methinks you may be a wee bit overly concerned about what people think of the way you dress…
Well I’m not on public assistance, but I did have people who didn’t believe I was homeless because I wasn’t dirty (because I HATE being dirty and would go out of my way to stay clean even sleeping on the streets) and because I didn’t wear totally trashed clothes (it’s not that hard to get decent stuff at thrift stores, or steal them out of laundromats like I shamefully did a time or two). My whole point was a reaction to Thomas somehow deciding that he knows how well off people or needful people are based on how they are dressed. It’s stupid. And superior and snobby.
The escalating war on women:
http://www.newsmax.com/US/obamacare-ads-sex-millenials/2013/11/13/id/536441
“The caption goes on, “OMG, he’s hot! Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control. My health insurance covers the pill, which means all I have to worry about is getting him between the covers. I got insurance. Now you can too. Thanks Obamacare.””
Haha, this is so ridiculous. “Hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control” wth, what a stupid ad.
White people in general don’t have to worry about their skin color keeping them from opportunities, that is all white privilege means.
Ok Jack – so what would happen if an employer hired me because of being a Caucasian, but a week into my job with the company would come to realize I am a total dimwit who has no clue? The door would hit my derriere Jack. Skin color can only get you so far. I think you realize that. That is precisely the reason I stress abilities.
You are completely missing the point. Your skin color will probably not GET or KEEP your job if you are white (except inadvertently, like a black candidate being ignored in favor of you). But it will not HOLD YOU BACK either. However, if you had a darker skin tone, your skin color will make it less likely for you to get a job. It can hold you back. Do you get it? White is treated as default, that’s why white people can talk about things being “colorblind” with a straight face. Our skin color doesn’t make it harder or more difficult for us. That is not true for people with darker skin. Whites are more likely to be judged on merits, while non-whites are judged by their color. Does that make any sense at all?
I think people who deny racism and classism and such must subscribe to some type of just world fallacy, where everyone has equal opportunities and no one has extra burdens to overcome.
Who denies that racism exists? I think you have this all wrong Jack. It is the democrats who keep racism alive through their feel-good and patronizing handling of race issues. And than there are a bunch of race apologists who further distance us from each other…
Burdens to overcome? Now you are going to start telling me that our society prevents “minorities” from obtaining an education, does not afford them public assistance, excludes them from public live, excetera… In Chicago, the public school system bends over backwards to address score disparity with programs galore, but we still have a whopping number of “minorities” dropping out of school – are you proposing that the public school system is the burden?
When I arrived in Chicago 30 years ago, although I represent the 2nd largest group here, there was no assistance in my language. This is still the case by and large today. I must speak an exotic language or something, haha.
As long as we use race to justify our burden, we will never make progress – but what do I know for a caucasian guy right…
“Now you are going to start telling me that our society prevents “minorities” from obtaining an education, does not afford them public assistance, excludes them from public live, excetera…”
Why would I say that? I only say facts. Every time I talk to one of your sort you guys just completely ignore facts, why I have no idea.
“Burdens to overcome? Now you are going to start telling me that our society prevents “minorities” from obtaining an education, does not afford them public assistance, excludes them from public live, excetera… In Chicago, the public school system bends over backwards to address score disparity with programs galore, but we still have a whopping number of “minorities” dropping out of school – are you proposing that the public school system is the burden?”
Well I don’t know about the Chicago school system or what they do (except I’ve heard because of closings the class sizes are pretty awful), but I’ve told you a million times that I think a major reason children drop out because of family and peer culture problems, and in the case of inner city Chicago kids I’d guess racism probably plays a role. You seem to forget I basically grew up around tons of similar kids. They come home from school, mom’s boyfriend is smoking crack in the living room and beats them for disturbing him, their real dad is in prison for five years on a charge that would have gotten a white man probation, their mom’s previous boyfriend used to rape them while mom was at her third shift job (her second job overall), they eat junk for dinner every night because no one cooks or bothered to teach them how, and every single person they know over the age of 14 is in a gang, totally a junkie, or something similar. The boys look for older males to look up to and those guys usually end up being drug dealers or worse. They deal with racism and judgments every day and end up getting bitter about. I don’t know why people sneer about these type of city kids and why they can’t make it through school. Some of them do, but you cannot discount environment no matter how much you want it to be the kid’s faults. And when the kids grow up they perpetuate the same things and the cycle continues. Racist criminal “justice” policies and other things have contributed to the state that the city communities are in now, and it’s pretty difficult to change now. People tend to perpetuate what they know and are taught. Especially when people will deny things like disparity in job opportunities and discrimination with housing.
I honestly think you people just have a problem with empathy. I saw YOUR types when I was homeless too.
“…that I think a major reason children drop out because of family and peer culture problems, and in the case of inner city Chicago kids I’d guess racism probably plays a role.”
So now what you are saying is that all this white privilege all around drives inner city kids to drop out? I had no idea that I contribute to the plight of the inner city child with my “racist” talk of empowerment you have read on this blog over the past 5 months. And I guess every white person here is to be blamed too. I better start patronizing these children and showing empathy by telling them that its all the white man’s fault they are dropping out. while I am at it I may as well forget about the enormous property tax bill that has guaranteed gazilion projects for “minorities” in CPS schools. Yeah, the racism that contributes to the drop out rate is very obvious, not only in Chicago Jack but everywhere. White people just by being present in the lives of these children contribute to them giving up on school. What was I thinking. I am so sorry….
And another thing. If these children do drop out due to family and peer pressure which I concede happens, how come very few of them go back to obtain a GED? Our society has made it SUPER easy to get a GED, check it out. Does the family and peer pressure have such a stronghold into adulthood or could it be something else attributable to the person?
I hate scapegoating…
“So now what you are saying is that all this white privilege all around drives inner city kids to drop out? ”
That’s not what I’ve said. I do believe that racial inequity contributes to the state that inner city kids are in right now. The criminal “justice” system is a big one. Black men get sentenced to longer sentences, are less likely to be offered probation, sentence reductions, therapy, etc. When I got arrested as a kid half the time they’d just take me to my parents or give me community service, but the black kids were way more likely to actually be put in juvenile detention and get harsher punishments. So basically what’s happening is a vicious cycle. Boys are being raised without dads and strong male role models, because their role models have been unfairly taken from them because of systemic biases. So these boys grow up and don’t have direction, with their moms working extra jobs to support them and not spending much time with them, and they end up falling into gangs and other male dominated cultures to seek out what they aren’t getting at home. I’ve seen it a hundred times. Out of the street kids I’ve known I was one of the VERY few who grew up in a two parent home, most of them were fatherless and many had incarcerated fathers (and sometimes mothers). Gangs and the drug culture provides you with older males to learn from, because you seek that out if you don’t have a dad or your dad is awful. And another part of that culture is massive promiscuity, so these boys end up impregnating girls who also came from these awful homes. They don’t become good fathers to their own children because they never learned how, or they are addicts, or they end up incarcerated. And so the cycle continues.
That’s just one example of how I think systemic biases affect inner city minorities. There are others. There’s also definitely a sense of helplessness, which is common to many people in these positions regardless of race, but racism (knowing that even if you get out you’re less likely to make it very far) contributes to it to.
“I had no idea that I contribute to the plight of the inner city child with my “racist” talk of empowerment you have read on this blog over the past 5 months. And I guess every white person here is to be blamed too.”
I’m not calling you racist. You aren’t racist because you benefit from white privilege, and you aren’t racist because you don’t see the inequities. And I’m not blaming white people, the systemic inequities were in place before any of us were born, we might perpetuate them unconsciously but I do believe most people don’t intend to hold anyone back. But the fact remains that these inequities do exist, they do hold people back, and it doesn’t happen to us to the same extent because we have lighter skin.
” I better start patronizing these children and showing empathy by telling them that its all the white man’s fault they are dropping out. while I am at it I may as well forget about the enormous property tax bill that has guaranteed gazilion projects for “minorities” in CPS schools. Yeah, the racism that contributes to the drop out rate is very obvious, not only in Chicago Jack but everywhere. White people just by being present in the lives of these children contribute to them giving up on school. What was I thinking. I am so sorry….”
What I meant by empathy is that people I’ve talked to who think like you apparently don’t put yourselves in the place of the people you’re judging and really think about what it’s like to be them. That’s what I meant, people do it to street kids all the time. I don’t think it’s usually deliberate, but it doesn’t help. Like, the people who would offer us kids a place to sleep and get offended if we turned them down. “Well, obviously you don’t need help if you won’t take my offer of a place to sleep.” If they had thought about it for a moment, they might realize that a good portion of the people who offer you a place to stay when you’re a homeless teenager are looking for sex, and if we turned you down it was probably because we were afraid of being taken advantage of or raped by yet another person. That kind of thing. People offer solutions that don’t take into account the circumstances of the person they are offering it to.
Like people who tell the inner city kids they just need to study harder, get scholarships, and move out of the ghetto. Okay, yeah, can you explain how they have time to study when they have to babysit the younger siblings, listen to the neighbor beat his wife, have to deal with being beaten themselves, or hide from the gun shots outside the door? When you have to take care of your drunk mother passed out on the floor, or hide in the bathroom with the door locked because your dad is drunk and trying to beat you?
I’m not blaming you or white people in general for the plight of minorities. But I do think people offer solutions to these kids or homeless people or whatever minority that just don’t work with their circumstances. And then people get mad at them for not doing well enough. It’s just madness to me.
“And another thing. If these children do drop out due to family and peer pressure which I concede happens, how come very few of them go back to obtain a GED? Our society has made it SUPER easy to get a GED, check it out. Does the family and peer pressure have such a stronghold into adulthood or could it be something else attributable to the person? ”
Well, I haven’t ever gotten my GED. I don’t blame other people for that. I realize that I should. I’ve just never been to school, ever, and if I’m being honest I’m quite afraid of failing and finding out I’m just as dumb as everyone has always told me. I married young and had kids and work, and just never had the time or the inclination to man up and do it. And it seems a little hopeless. I can’t afford college and I always lie about having a GED anyway on job applications, no boss has ever checked yet, so it just seems rather useless. So I would wager a lot of people who haven’t gotten their GED have similar reasons to me.
So what I am hearing you say in the above posts is that there is truth to what I am attempting to impart here, yes? The reasoning that I have most problems with is the one that dooms us if we do and dooms us if we don’t, which is why I prefer to stay in the present. You seem to present circular arguments that to me do not move us forward. Arguments replete with the “whys” are hopeless and will never result in any steps forward. And this applies to any skin color Jack..
And one last thought for which you will hate me forever I am sure. Sometimes our choices take a big bite out of our lives…
“Whys” are very important Thomas. If you don’t understand WHY something is happening, you won’t understand how to fix it. If you don’t know why a woman is getting an abortion, your “help” isn’t going to mean much if it doesn’t do anything for her problems. If you don’t know why half the kids in Chicago’s inner city are dropping out, or worse you just think it’s all their fault, you can’t very well start to change things. You can’t really help someone with issues if you don’t understand what they are up against.
And of course choices can screw up your life. When have I ever denied that? People make bad choices all the time. You still can’t help them if you don’t understand where they’re coming from and what led them to their bad choices.
All of us live purposeful lives Jack and even with the baggage we have from our past, we know what it would take to make us happy in the present.
I am more of a cognitive-behavioral dude Jack and function based on the reality principle. Perhaps that is the reason “whys” do not serve a purpose in my world.
I will argue that not knowing what lead a person to a bad choice is not an obstacle to helping them overcome it in the present. If I may: would it make any difference if I knew the reasons you were homeless to help you overcome homelessness? The mere fact of being homeless is enough for me to act. Now conversely – you do know the reasons you became homeless – did the whys help you overcome or did they further “bring you down?” This is all rhetorical you understand. But I do think that more often than not, the why question gets a nasty response…
“If I may: would it make any difference if I knew the reasons you were homeless to help you overcome homelessness? The mere fact of being homeless is enough for me to act.”
Well it kind of does matter, that’s one thing that some aid workers don’t seem to get. There are multiple reasons someone is in the spot they are (whether it be homeless, or an addict, whatever), and one size doesn’t fit all if you’re trying to help someone. If you’re talking about street kids, you need to know who has parents that are possibly safe to go home to, and who would be seriously in danger if you sent them home (or in the case of the LGBT kids, kicked out again if you brought them home). You need to know who is afraid of men, because you might have to have a woman help you help certain kids because they’ve been so badly abused by men that they will never trust you because you’re male, or conversely for those mostly abused by women. There are many things you need to know if you want your help to really help. People who don’t pay attention to stuff like that, even well-intentioned or loving people, have less success helping than those who try to figure out where people are coming from.
And plus your idea that what leads a person to a bad choice is not an obstacle to helping them overcome it in the future, I don’t agree with that at all. People learn behaviors to cope with their circumstances, it’s hard to unlearn these behaviors if you don’t deal with what caused them in the first place. And of course there are underlying issues like PTSD and phobias and such that need attention that cannot be ignored or “overcome” without looking into the “whys”.
I am sorry but my brain does not process anything beyond last midnight. It’s gone and it will never come back to me. I live for today and tomorrow. I know its not very humanistic but you would be surprised what it can do in terms of outlook on life.
You are a great person Jack!!! I mean that. We all live purposeful lives one way or another..
(let’s take a breather from all this cyber-therapy) :)